No matter how someone looks on paper, there are always people who fake what's on their resume. Even "verifiable employment" doesn't really say exactly what you did there. I've had to work on many jobs either with or after incompetent fools who BSed their way in by looking good on paper, and talking a good game (and I've usually had to clean up their messes).
So for me, personally, I have no problem taking such a test, because it's my chance to show that I mean what I say. Plus, if the company gives these tests, it means that they're weeding out the people who BS their way into a job, which means my job would ultimately be easier, since I wouldn't have to work with these morons.
So, personally, I have no problem at all with these tests.
sounds like your university had some common sense. but, then again, that was probably in a different era, when things weren't as dependent on the internet, or so easily accessible. but maybe not.
hopefully they're just trying to deter other ppl from doing the same. who knows, maybe he made a big deal about it, and if the university doesn't punish him severely, it would encourage others to do it.
so, hopefully they're just trying to set an example with him, and, hopefully, after he's convicted, they'll request a lenient sentence, maybe community service.
well, then I'd have to agree. and the guy's a jerk then.
I remember reading a lexicon as an appendix to "A Clockwork Orange," and it was very helpful. But there was no quoting there at all (or at least so little that I don't remember it). So why this fellow felt the need to quote is beyond me.
i suppose this gets into the fair use argument. And I don't know how much verbatim copying this person's book had. but it seems unreasonable to not allow any quoting of the books at all.
oftentimes just having legal muscle is enough to win the day. like with disney sueing people who have photos with disneyland in them for copyright infringement, even though it's a publicly viewable outdoor area.
so sometimes all of this just gets absurd. but, again, i don't know how much verbatim copying was in his work, so it may be legitimate.
I don't think the issue here is bringing the Internet to all these people. As the summary notes, there's problems with power, literacy, etc. Plus, how much could Google actually make selling advertising to poor Africans? How much would advertisers be willing to pay to advertise to people that don't have much money with which to buy?
No, the real goal here, IMO, is to set up an infrastructure that allows businesses to operate in the region, by making broadband available, and then sell broadband access to businesses who can set up shop there, get cheap and abundant labor, and have broadband access.
Problems with literacy wouldn't be an issue, since only managers would need to access the Internet. And power issues wouldn't be that large, since they'd only need power lines to the places of business, not to individual homes.
So here, I think, Google is looking to function as an ISP, rather than as an ad merchant.
That doesn't even make sense. I'm agreeing to allow them to use what I VIEW in the browser? The browser is for viewing, not uploading. Something's not right.
fuckin A! i live a few blocks from that place! what are the chances of someone mentioning it here. (Or maybe it's more famous/significant than I thought.)
Oh shit - i see snakeyes also lives here. wow, didn't know so many people from bedford read this blog. (hey, snakeyes - sup!)
i think the reason they don't have passwords is to not put any obstacles in the way of people buying things. what if someone forgot the password? might be a week or two before they got a new one, and, by that time, they probably wouldn't wanna buy whatever.
but this system is absurd, I agree.
reminds me once about when I went to my bank for a loan approval for a car. had the dealer call them with the info, and I talked the bank on the phone and said I was interested in the car. before I knew it, the girl was telling me when my first payment would be, what papers they'd be mailing me, etc. I said, "Whoa! I just wanted to know if this car qualified for the loan, based on the year and blue book value, etc." She said, "Yes, and you're taking out the loan now." I was like, "You mean I don't have to sign anything," and she was like, "No, you told me over the phone that you wanted the car."
Man, talk about a sick society.
I assume it means you own the rights to what you post here, in case someone wants to use something you said and claim it as yours. Also, if you want to use it, you don't need permission to do so. But the words aren't objects; so you don't have rights to the COPY of the words that are on the site; only the rights to the words themselves. This would be like someone complaining to a library because they don't take down a copy of a someone's book that was legally purchased, or because said person can't easily find a copy of their book in the library. The rights are not to the copy of the words, but to the use of the words.
Slashdot Mirror
anyone wonder if he had any help with this thing? wonder what dad does for a living?
and while you're on site, you have to protect yourself from any viruses you might pick up.
No matter how someone looks on paper, there are always people who fake what's on their resume. Even "verifiable employment" doesn't really say exactly what you did there. I've had to work on many jobs either with or after incompetent fools who BSed their way in by looking good on paper, and talking a good game (and I've usually had to clean up their messes). So for me, personally, I have no problem taking such a test, because it's my chance to show that I mean what I say. Plus, if the company gives these tests, it means that they're weeding out the people who BS their way into a job, which means my job would ultimately be easier, since I wouldn't have to work with these morons. So, personally, I have no problem at all with these tests.
sounds like your university had some common sense. but, then again, that was probably in a different era, when things weren't as dependent on the internet, or so easily accessible. but maybe not. hopefully they're just trying to deter other ppl from doing the same. who knows, maybe he made a big deal about it, and if the university doesn't punish him severely, it would encourage others to do it. so, hopefully they're just trying to set an example with him, and, hopefully, after he's convicted, they'll request a lenient sentence, maybe community service.
well, then I'd have to agree. and the guy's a jerk then. I remember reading a lexicon as an appendix to "A Clockwork Orange," and it was very helpful. But there was no quoting there at all (or at least so little that I don't remember it). So why this fellow felt the need to quote is beyond me.
i suppose this gets into the fair use argument. And I don't know how much verbatim copying this person's book had. but it seems unreasonable to not allow any quoting of the books at all. oftentimes just having legal muscle is enough to win the day. like with disney sueing people who have photos with disneyland in them for copyright infringement, even though it's a publicly viewable outdoor area. so sometimes all of this just gets absurd. but, again, i don't know how much verbatim copying was in his work, so it may be legitimate.
i wonder what would happen if the bloke took out the verbatim copying?....
I don't think the issue here is bringing the Internet to all these people. As the summary notes, there's problems with power, literacy, etc. Plus, how much could Google actually make selling advertising to poor Africans? How much would advertisers be willing to pay to advertise to people that don't have much money with which to buy? No, the real goal here, IMO, is to set up an infrastructure that allows businesses to operate in the region, by making broadband available, and then sell broadband access to businesses who can set up shop there, get cheap and abundant labor, and have broadband access. Problems with literacy wouldn't be an issue, since only managers would need to access the Internet. And power issues wouldn't be that large, since they'd only need power lines to the places of business, not to individual homes. So here, I think, Google is looking to function as an ISP, rather than as an ad merchant.
your reply doesn't make sense either.
That doesn't even make sense. I'm agreeing to allow them to use what I VIEW in the browser? The browser is for viewing, not uploading. Something's not right.
fuckin A! i live a few blocks from that place! what are the chances of someone mentioning it here. (Or maybe it's more famous/significant than I thought.) Oh shit - i see snakeyes also lives here. wow, didn't know so many people from bedford read this blog. (hey, snakeyes - sup!)
rofl :-)
i think the reason they don't have passwords is to not put any obstacles in the way of people buying things. what if someone forgot the password? might be a week or two before they got a new one, and, by that time, they probably wouldn't wanna buy whatever. but this system is absurd, I agree. reminds me once about when I went to my bank for a loan approval for a car. had the dealer call them with the info, and I talked the bank on the phone and said I was interested in the car. before I knew it, the girl was telling me when my first payment would be, what papers they'd be mailing me, etc. I said, "Whoa! I just wanted to know if this car qualified for the loan, based on the year and blue book value, etc." She said, "Yes, and you're taking out the loan now." I was like, "You mean I don't have to sign anything," and she was like, "No, you told me over the phone that you wanted the car." Man, talk about a sick society.
I assume it means you own the rights to what you post here, in case someone wants to use something you said and claim it as yours. Also, if you want to use it, you don't need permission to do so. But the words aren't objects; so you don't have rights to the COPY of the words that are on the site; only the rights to the words themselves. This would be like someone complaining to a library because they don't take down a copy of a someone's book that was legally purchased, or because said person can't easily find a copy of their book in the library. The rights are not to the copy of the words, but to the use of the words.